Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County For Prothonotary Use Only (Docket Number)

Trial Division
Civil Cover Sheet E-Filing Number: 1811006345
PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME
KIM D. BOUDER HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., ALIAS: HONEY
WELL, INC.
PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS
1973 DREXEL AVENUE 2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE
LANCASTER PA 17602 HARRISBURG PA 17110

PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME

CONTRACTORS GROUP, INC.

PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS

P.O. BOX 532 KEITH STREET
WILKES-BARRE PA 18703

PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME

PPL CORPORATION

PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS

2 N. 9TH STREET
ALLENTOWN PA 18101

TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION

X Complaint Petition Action Notice of Appeal
1 4
Writ of Summons Transfer From Other Jurisdictions
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY COURT PROGRAMS

Arbitration Mass Tort Commerce Settlement

$50,000.00 or less X Jury Savings Action Minor Court Appeal Minors
X More than $50,000.00 Non-Jury Petition Statutory Appeals W/D/Survival
Other:
CASE TYPE AND CODE

2P - PRODUCT LIABILITY

STATUTORY BASIS FOR CAUSE OF ACTION

RELATED PENDING CASES (LIST BY CASE CAPTION AND DOCKET NUMBER) IS CASE SUBJECT TO
COORDINATION ORDER?
YES NO

NOV 05 2018
A. SILIGRINI

TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant: KIM D BOUDER
Papers may be served at the address set forth below.

NAME OF PLAINTIFF'S/PETITIONER'S/APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY ADDRESS

MATTHEW A. CASEY ROSS FELLER CASEY LLP

1650 MARKET ST SUITE 3450
PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER PHILADELPHIA PA 19103
(215)574-2000 (215)574-3080

SUPREME COURT IDENTIFICATION NO. E-MAIL ADDRESS

84443 mcasey@rossfellercasey.com

SIGNATURE OF FILING ATTORNEY OR PARTY DATE SUBMITTED

MATTHEW CASEY Monday, November 05, 2018, 09:28 am

FINAL COPY (Approved by the Prothonotary Clerk)

COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS:
1. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ALIAS: HONEY WELL, INC.
2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE
HARRISBURG PA 17110
2. CONTRACTORS GROUP, INC.
P.O. BOX 532 KEITH STREET
WILKES-BARRE PA 18703
3. PPL CORPORATION
2 N. 9TH STREET
ALLENTOWN PA 18101
4. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION
2 N. 9TH STREET
ALLENTOWN PA 18101
ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP Filed and Attested by the
BY: MATTHEW A. CASEY, ESQUIRE Office of Judicial Records
JOHN M. PINTO, ESQUIRE 05 NOV 2018 09:28 am
ATTORNEY ID NOS: 84443/206213 A. SILIGRINI
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, 34th Floor Attorneys for Plaintiff
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-574-2000

KIM D. BOUDER, Individually and as Administratrix : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

of the Estate of RICHARD A. BOUDER, deceased, : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
1973 Drexel Avenue :
Lancaster, PA 17602 : No.
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
:
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. f/k/a :
and/or d/b/a Honeywell, Inc. :
Corporation Service Company :
2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103 :
Harrisburg, PA 17110 :

NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and
notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing
in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you.
You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money
claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You
may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH
BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT
HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY
OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR
NO FEE.
Lawyer Referral Service
Philadelphia Bar Association
1101 Market Street, 11th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 238-6338
ADVISO
Le han demandado a used en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas
expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de
la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita
o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o
sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no
se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya
sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte pueda decidir a favor del
demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda.
Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para
usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO
TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL
SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA
CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR
DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
ESTA OFICINA LO PUEDE PROPORCIONAR CON INFORMACION ACERCA
DE EMPLEAR A UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PROPORCIONAR
PARA EMPLEAR UN ABOGADO, ESTA OFICINA PUEDE SER CAPAZ DE
PROPORCIONARLO CON INFORMACION ACERCA DE LAS AGENCIAS QUE
PUEDEN OFRECER LOS SERVICOS LEGALES A PERSONAS ELEGIBLES EN
UN HONORARIO REDUCIDO NINGUN HONORARIO.
Lawyer Referral Service
Philadelphia Bar Association
1101 Market Street, 11 th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 238-6338

Case ID: 181100083

and/or :
1145 Highway 315 Blvd. :
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 :
and/or :
115 Tabor Road :
Morris Plains, NJ 07950 :
and :
CONTRACTORS GROUP, INC. :
P.O. Box 532 Keith Street :
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18703 :
and :
PPL CORPORATION :
2 N. 9th St. :
Allentown, PA 18101 :
and :
PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES :
CORPORATION :
2 N. 9th St. :
Allentown, PA 18101 :
:
Defendants. :
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION - COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Kim D. Bouder, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard A.
Bouder, deceased, herein complains of the above-captioned defendants in this civil action as follows:
PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Kim Bouder is an adult individual residing at 1973 Drexel Avenue,

Lancaster, PA 17602.
2. Plaintiff Kim Bouder is the surviving spouse of Richard A. Bouder, deceased.
3. Richard (“Rick”) Bouder was born on January 7, 1963; he died on July 2, 2017 as
a direct result of defendants’ defective product and/or defendants’ negligence and recklessness, as
further described herein.
4. Plaintiff Kim Bouder is the Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Bouder,
deceased, having been so appointed by the Register of Wills in the County of Lancaster in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on or about February 16, 2018. See Short Certificate Letters of

Case ID: 181100083

Administration, attached as Exhibit A. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of her husband’s Estate
and on behalf of herself, as a beneficiary under and by virtue of the Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. §8301, the Survival Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8302, and the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure
and decisional law interpreting those Acts.
5. Notice of the institution of this action, as required by Pa. R. Civ. P. 2205, was
given to the following individuals, who are the heirs-at-law and survivors of the decedent Richard
Bouder:
a. Kim Bouder (spouse)
b. Danielle Hornberger (adult daughter)
6. This matter involves a Permalock mechanical tapping tee (hereinafter referred to as
the “Tapping Tee”) that, upon information and belief, was manufactured in or about 1998 by the
Honeywell Defendants (defined below). The Tapping Tee is a product utilized to connect a main
gas line to a service line in order to supply natural gas to homes, residences or other structures.
The Tapping Tee at issue is currently being stored and maintained in Washington, D.C. with the
National Transportation Safety Board.
7. Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a and/or d/b/a Honeywell, Inc.
(“Honeywell International”) is a corporation or other jural entity that is registered to do business in
the state of Pennsylvania and with a registered agent for service located at Corporation Service
Company, 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103 Harrisburg, PA 17110 and/or operating under the laws
of the state of Pennsylvania with business locations in Pennsylvania that include1145 Highway
315 Boulevard, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 and/or 2450 Wakeling St., Philadelphia PA 19137.
Honeywell International also maintains a business location and/or corporate headquarters at
115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950. Defendant Honeywell International regularly conducts
significant business in, and has sufficient minimum contacts with, or otherwise intentionally avails
itself of the markets of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and specifically Philadelphia County
through its business operations and sale of its products/services in Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, to include:
a. regularly conducting business in Philadelphia for decades through its sale of
products and provision of services in Philadelphia.

Case ID: 181100083

 b. operating business locations in Philadelphia for many years, including a
manufacturing facility/plant at the location 2501 Margaret Street,
Philadelphia PA 19137 and/or 2450 Wakeling St. Philadelphia, PA 19137
from which it generated millions of dollars of business income.
8. Upon information and belief, in or about December 2015 Honeywell International
acquired Elster Perfection Corporation (formerly known as Perfection Corporation) and/or Elster
American Meter [Elster Perfection Corporation, Perfection Corporation and Elster American Meter
are collectively referred to hereafter as “Elster Perfection”]. As such, Honeywell International is the
successor-in-interest to and/or assumed the liabilities for all Elster Perfection products, including
the Tapping Tee that was involved in the incident that caused the death of Richard Bouder on
July 2, 2017, as further described herein.
9. Upon information and belief, Honeywell International is the successor entity and/or
successor-in-interest to Elster Perfection. At all relevant times hereto, Elster Perfection solely
operated as a division of Honeywell International.
10. Defendant Honeywell International as well as its divisions, groups, subsidiaries,
predecessor entities, affiliated entities for whom it will bear liability, including specifically the Elster
Perfection division of Honeywell International, shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the
“Honeywell Defendants.”
11. At all relevant times, the Honeywell Defendants had extensive and regular business
contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and regularly, systematically, and continuously
transacted business and related activities, including sale of products/services, maintaining business
locations, generation of profits and solicitation of customers in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
12. At all relevant times, the Honeywell Defendants were manufacturers, designers
and/or sellers engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling,
inspecting, marketing, distributing, labeling, testing, selling and/or supplying, among other things
natural gas line products/services and tapping tees, including specifically the Tapping Tee involved
in Mr. Bouder’s July 2, 2017 fatal incident, as described herein.

Case ID: 181100083

 13. At all material times hereto, the Honeywell Defendants acted by themselves and by
and through their principals, owners, directors, agents, servants and employees, including actual,
apparent and/or ostensible agents, who will be further identified through discovery.
14. At all material times, the Honeywell Defendants also acted by themselves and by
and through their respective divisions, groups, subsidiaries, acquired entities and/or affiliated entities
for whom Honeywell International is liable.
15. The Honeywell Defendants are directly liable to plaintiff for the defects of the
Tapping Tee that caused the injuries and death of Richard Bouder and/or are liable based upon
successor liability under Pennsylvania Law, including but not limited to express assumption of
liability, the product line exception, consolidation/merger and/or the mere continuation doctrine.
16. Defendant Contractors Group, Inc. (“CGI”) is a Pennsylvania corporation or other
jural entity organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania with a principal
place of business at P.O. Box 532 Keith Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18703 an/or 99 Parry Street,
Wilkes-Barre, PA, 18709 and/or 2016 State Road 118, Sweet Valley, PA 18656. Defendant CGI
conducts significant business in, and has sufficient minimum contacts with, or otherwise
intentionally avails itself of the markets of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and specifically
Philadelphia County through its business operations and services in Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania.
17. At all relevant times, CGI acted by itself and by and through its owners, principals,
directors, agents, servants and employees, including actual, apparent and/or ostensible agents who
will be further identified through discovery.
18. Defendant PPL Corporation (“PPL”)is a Pennsylvania corporation or other jural entity
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business
at 2 N. 9th St., Allentown, PA 18101. Defendant PPL is an electric utilities company that provides
power and electrical services throughout Pennsylvania. PPL conducts significant business in, and
has sufficient minimum contacts with, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the markets of the

Case ID: 181100083

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and specifically Philadelphia County through its business
operations and services in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
19. Defendant PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (“PPLEUC”) is a Pennsylvania
corporation or other jural entity organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania
with a principal place of business at 2 N. 9th St., Allentown, PA 18101. Defendant PPLEUC is an
electric utilities company that provides power and electrical services throughout Pennsylvania.
Defendant PPLEUC conducts significant business in, and has sufficient minimum contacts with, or
otherwise intentionally avails itself of the markets of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
specifically Philadelphia County through its business operations and services in Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania.
20. Defendants PPL and PPLEUC as well as their divisions, groups, subsidiaries and
affiliated entities shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “PPL Defendants”.
21. At all relevant times, the PPL Defendants acted by themselves and by and through
their owners, principals, directors, agents, servants and employees, including actual, apparent and/or
ostensible agents who will be further identified through discovery
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22. This Court has jurisdiction over each defendant because each defendant either has its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania, is incorporated in Pennsylvania, is registered to do
business in Pennsylvania, has consented to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and/or does sufficient
business in, or has sufficient minimum contacts with, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the
markets of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through its business operations in Pennsylvania.
23. Venue is properly laid in Philadelphia County pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure 1006 and 2179, including because one or more of the defendants regularly conducts
business in Philadelphia and/or may be served there.

Case ID: 181100083

 OPERATIVE FACTS
24. On or about July 2, 2017, decedent Richard Bouder was providing work on behalf
of UGI Utilities, Inc. (“UGI”) as a technician/mechanic.
25. At or about 10:31 a.m., on July 2, 2017, Mr. Bouder was dispatched to the address
206 Springdale Lane, Millersville, PA (the “Residence” or “incident site”)due to a report of the
smell of natural gas.
26. The incident site was a residential neighborhood consisting of a cul-de-sac and
several homes that received natural gas through a main gas line (‘main”) approximately two (2)
inches in diameter that branched off to smaller distribution/service lines in order to deliver gas to the
individual homes. The main in front of the Residence was connected to the service line by the
Tapping Tee at issue.
27. At or about 11:00 a.m., Richard Bouder arrived at the incident site.
28. At the incident site, Mr. Bouder took readings that detected significantly elevated
levels of natural gas, indicative of a gas leak from the Tapping Tee. As a result, additional UGI
personnel were dispatched to the site.
29. Mr. Bouder remained at the scene and evacuated the occupants of the Residence.
Other UGI personnel were in the process of attempting to take measures to stop the flow of gas to
the incident site, which involved digging a hole in the nearby area. Mr. Bouder remained within the
proximity of the Residence.
30. At or about 12:39 p.m. a massive and catastrophic explosion occurred at the
Residence due to the high concentration of natural gas at the incident site that had resulted from the
leaking, defective Tapping Tee as well as its improper installation. The explosion destroyed the
Residence at the location, damaged other homes in the vicinity and resulted in Mr. Bouder suffering
ultimately fatal injuries. An aerial photographs of the remains of the Residence and the incident site
after the explosion are below:

Case ID: 181100083

7

Case ID: 181100083

 31. The electricity remained on at the Residence/incident site from the time that
Mr. Bouder was dispatched and throughout the time of the explosion and was not shut off by the
PPL Defendants despite an explosive level of gas with numerous uncontrolled ignition sources.
32. At or about 1:08 p.m., the power was finally shut off at the Residence by the PPL
Defendants. Thereafter, personnel of the PPL Defendants arrived at the incident site.
33. At or about 2:30 p.m., Mr. Bouder was pronounced dead by the Lancaster County
Coroner’s office with a cause listed as “Multiple Traumatic Injuries”. He was only 54 years old.
34. At the time of Mr. Bouder being present on at the incident site, the significant natural
gas leak that caused the explosion was due to the design defects and warning/instructional defects
of the Tapping Tee that was designed, manufactured and supplied by the Honeywell Defendants.
35. The source of the gas that caused the explosion at the incident site was due to a leak
from the Tapping Tee at the connection to the main that resulted from the defective design and
defective instructions/warnings of the Tapping Tee. As set forth herein, these defects made the
product unreasonable dangerous and unsafe for its ordinary and intended use.
36. Upon information and belief, the Tapping Tee had been installed by defendant
Contractors Group, Inc.
37. The numerous defects in design, warnings and instructions of the Tapping Tee by the
Honeywell Defendants, the improper installation by CGI as well as the failures by the PPL to
implement and communicate a process for electrical shut off in the presence of a gas leak,
individually and collectively, created a hazardous condition to persons that directly resulted in the
grievous harm and fatal injuries to Richard Bouder.
The Honeywell Defendants - The Defective Tapping Tee
38. The Tapping Tee utilized at the location of the incident site where the aforementioned
explosion occurred consisted of an upper and lower half that was joined together by four nylon bolts.
The upper half of the Tapping Tee (the tower) also contained a steel cutter tool and locking sleeve.
The steel cutter and locking sleeve were the mechanism by which the Tapping Tee was installed and

Case ID: 181100083

connected to the main gas line by piercing a hole and forming threads in the main gas line. An
exemplar diagram of the Tapping Tee and its component parts follows:

39. The Tapping Tee also was designed, manufactured and designed by the Honeywell
Defendants with four nylon bolts at the corners that allowed for the upper and lower half to connect
around the main gas line and to surround the main. These bolts were to be tightened during
installation, however, there was no specific torque level provided to users/installers by the
Honeywell Defendants. Nor were there any instructions for the specific tool(s) to be utilized during

Case ID: 181100083

the installation process. This lack of crucial instructions and warnings for the Tapping Tee rendered
it defective and resulted in the product being in an unreasonably dangerous condition and overly
prone to potentially catastrophic gas leaks.
40. The Tapping Tee was designed, manufactured and supplied by the Honeywell
Defendants in a defective and hazardous condition because it utilized nylon bolts for its connection
that were deficient in strength and overly susceptible to failure, fatigue and fracture with normal and
expected usage of the Tapping Tee. The Honeywell Defendants knew that designing,
manufacturing, distributing and selling this product with these grossly insufficient bolts would result
in uncontrolled gas leaks and catastrophic explosion that may lead to serious injury or death.
41. The design defects of the Tapping Tee were demonstrated by findings after the
explosion that showed several of the nylon bolts on the Tapping Tee at issue were fractured, cracked
or had findings consisted with overstressing/fatigue that directly led to the gas leak that caused this
fatal explosion on July 2, 2017. A photograph depicting the fractured bolts on the subject Tapping
Tee is below:

10

Case ID: 181100083

 42. In fact, demonstrating the defective nature of the Tapping Tee’s design, the
Honeywell Defendants have subsequently upgraded the materials from which the bolts of the
Tapping Tee are made and also offer consumers stainless steel bolts instead of the nylon bolts.
43. The Tapping Tee also was designed, manufactured and supplied by the Honeywell
Defendants with a “depth tube” that was in the upper tower portion of the Tapping Tee on top of the
cutter tool and was to be utilized during the assembly/installation process. The purported purpose
of the depth tube was to provide the installer/user a visual indication of the location of the cutting
mechanism and the point at which it attaches to, or makes contact with, the main gas line.
An exemplar diagram of the Tapping Tee assembly depicting the depth tube is below:

11

Case ID: 181100083

 44. During assembly/installation, the cutter tool of the Tapping Tee pierces the main gas
line and threads the pierced hole of the main. This creates a gas path between the active main and
service line connected by the Tapping Tee. For proper installation the gas path must be opened by
disengaging the cutter tool from the locking sleeve. The locking sleeve was to stay connected to the
main and the cutter tool is then shifted up inside the upper (tower) portion of the Tapping Tee, where
it remains. The defective design of the Tapping Tee resulted in the locking sleeve and cutter tool
being overly prone to remain engaged, such that there would not be a secure connection to the main,
resulting in serious and potentially catastrophic gas leaks.
45. Investigation of the Tapping Tee after the explosion at issue demonstrated the
defective product design and instructions/warnings as inspection revealed that the locking sleeve
remained connected to the cutter tool. As such, the locking sleeve was not properly
attached/engaged to the main pipe wall to create a secure connection and prevent a gas leak.
46. As a direct cause of the design defects with the Tapping Tee, as described herein, the
product was unsafe and unreasonably dangerous. The product’s defects created the catastrophic and
hazardous condition of a severe natural gas leak that exposed individuals to severe harm or death and
directly resulted in the July 2, 2017 explosion that killed Richard Bouder.
47. The Tapping Tee was also accompanied by written instructions/warnings for
installation and usage. These instructions/warnings failed to properly instruct and/or warn users
regarding proper installation and safe usage of the Tapping Tee rendering the product defective.
48. According to the Tapping Tee’s instructions for installation, the nylon bolts were to
be tightened “until the corners touch using a cross over tightening pattern” however there were no
instructions for the specific tool(s) to utilize or precise manner in which the bolts were to be
tightened. A locking torque value was also not provided by the Honeywell Defendants.
49. The Tapping Tee instructions for installation were further defective in that they failed
to specify all of the necessary details (including critical information such as specific tools, install
techniques and checks) to properly accomplish installation and ensure theat the Tapping Tee safely
attaches to the main to prevent a gas leak.

12 Case ID: 181100083

 50. In fact, despite actual and/or constructive knowledge by the Honeywell Defendants
for many years that the length of a wrench used for installation will directly effect whether a Tapping
Tee can be correctly and safely installed, the Honeywell Defendants acted in reckless and brazen
disregard for the safety of individuals by failing to include this basic information in their
warnings/instructions for the Tapping Tee and/or notify purchasers/users of the specific length
wrench to utilize for installation. The Honeywell Defendants’ knowledge in this regard is
demonstrated, for example, by a 1996 Installation Instruction video that indicated a smaller length
wrench will allow the technician/installer to sense or detect the various phases of installation to
ensure the Tapping Tee is properly installed and secured, as opposed to a longer wrench.
51. The Tapping Tee instructions were further defective and resulted in a hazardous
condition because they failed to specify and/or inform the user/installer how to detect or determine
proper installation and the various events that indicated the product was safely installed, including
the Tapping Tee piercing of the main, being driven through the main, forming threads into the main,
making contact at a stop at the bottom of the tower and/or separating from the locking sleeve.
Without these specific instructions, users/installers of the product could not properly assess and
determine whether the Tapping Tee was properly installed and secured to the main.
52. The Tapping Tee instructions/warnings were further defective and resulted in a
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous condition because they failed to properly instruct the
user/installer regarding the proper and appropriate usage of the depth tube of the Tapping Tee in
order to properly accomplish installation and ensure that the Tapping Tee safely attached to the main
to prevent against a gas leak and resulting catastrophic explosion.
53. The Tapping Tee instructions/warnings were further defective and resulted in a
hazardous and dangerous condition because they failed to warn or instruct the user/ installer of the
proper tightening and torquing of the nylon bolts which, in turn, resulted in unnecessary fatigue and
stress on the bolts making the product overly susceptible to gas leaks, including from over/under
tightening of the bolts.

13

Case ID: 181100083

 54. The Tapping Tee instructions/warnings were further defective in that they failed to
provide any warning to users and consumers of the severe and potentially fatal injuries that may
occur if the Tapping Tee was not properly installed or safely used, including from a gas leakage,
explosion and/or fire.
55. As a result of the defective warnings/instructions that accompanied the Tapping Tee,
it created an unsafe and hazardous condition at the incident site, including the natural gas leak that
ultimately resulted in the July 2, 2017 explosion that killed Richard Bouder.
56. Demonstrating the defective instructions/warnings supplied by the Honeywell
Defendants with the Tapping Tee, after the incident it was discovered that the locking sleeve of the
Tapping Tee was not properly engaged/secured with the main (and instead remained connected with
the cutting tool in the tower portion of the Tapping Tee) resulting in the gas leak and fatal explosion.
57. Furthermore, upon inspection of the Tapping Tee there was no evidence of thread
markings within the pierced hole of the main, demonstrating that the Tapping Tee was not properly
installed and secured to the main as a result of its defective design and instructions/warnings.
58. The defects in warnings/instructions of the Tapping Tee, in turn, exacerbated the
design defects as the improper installation of the Tapping Tee put further stress on the nylon bolts
and resulted in these defective bolts being the primary mechanism of holding the Tapping Tee in
place, keeping it attached/secured to the main and preventing against a gas leak. These nylon bolts,
that were already prone to failure/fracture due to their inherently deficient properties, directly
resulted in a hazardous and unreasonably dangerous condition by allowing gas to leak from the main
and to escape from the Tapping Tee.
59. The Honeywell Defendants were on actual and/or constructive notice of the various
design and instructional/warning defects with the Tapping Tee and the potentially catastrophic
consequences of same for many years as there had been several prior, severe explosions involving
personal injury, death and/or property damage due to gas leaks from the same or similar model
Tapping Tees before July 2, 2017, including the following:

14

Case ID: 181100083

 • A December 9, 2009 natural gas explosion in Knoxville, Tennessee where a Tapping
Tee designed, manufactured and sold by the Honeywell Defendants was leaking gas
from a main due to fractured bolts and improper installation. The product defects
resulted in a gas leak and explosion causing the death of an individual and serious
injuries to others as well as destruction to a three story residence and surrounding
structures.
• A September 2, 2006 incident in West Lampeter Township, PA where a Tapping Tee
designed, manufactured and sold by the Honeywell Defendants was leaking gas from
a main due to fractured bolts and improper installation that resulted in a gas leak and
explosion of a residence.
60. Upon information and belief, there are additional prior incidents involving personal
injury and/or property damages due to the Tapping Tee product defects that were known by the
Honeywell Defendants, which will be the subject of discovery in this litigation.
61. In fact, as a result of several gas leaks and explosions that had resulted from the
defective design and warnings/instructions of the Tapping Tee (that were known throughout the
industry to result in gas leaks and the potential for catastrophic explosions and personal
injury/property damages), there was an effort by gas companies in Pennsylvania and other states to
identify Tapping Tees manufactured by the Honeywell Defendants to ensure they were properly
installed, repair and replace bolts on those Tapping Tees and/or to replace the product entirely.
62. In conscious and reckless disregard to the health, safety and well-being of Richard
Bouder, the Honeywell Defendants failed to take any action to advise consumers and/or remedy the
defective and unsafe condition of the Tapping Tee prior to July 2, 2017, despite knowledge of the
Tapping Tee’s defective and unreasonably dangerous condition that could cause a catastrophic
explosion and result in grave personal injury or death to persons.
63. As a result of the defects in safety and design, the Tapping Tee was hazardous and
inherently dangerous for users and individuals relying on its safety, including Richard Bouder, and
posed an inherent risk of severe injury or death.
64. The Tapping Tee designed, manufactured, labelled, tested, sold and distributed by the
Honeywell Defendants was in a defective an unreasonably dangerous condition as a result of its
inability to safely function for its intended use and inadequacy of its warnings and instructions for
installation, as further described herein.

15

Case ID: 181100083

 65. As a direct result of the deficiencies and defects of the Tapping Tees as well as the
Honeywell Defendants’ reckless disregard for Richard Bouder’s health, safety and well-being, a
devastating explosion occurred due to the leakage of natural gas from the Tapping Tee causing
multiple profound and pain-inducing injuries to Mr. Bouder that resulted in his untimely death.
66. The Tapping Tee was designed, manufactured and sold by the Honeywell Defendants
in a condition which was defective, dangerous and hazardous to users and individuals within its
proximity, including Richard Bouder.
67. The Tapping Tee was designed, manufactured and sold by the Honeywell Defendants
without adequate and appropriate instructions and/or warnings that would have prevented the
explosion as occurred on July 2, 2017 and thus prevented the harm to and death of Richard Bouder.
68. Prior to the incident involving Richard Bouder on July 2, 2017, the Honeywell
Defendants failed to properly and adequately warn and instruct users and consumers of the dangerous
and hazardous condition of the Tapping Tee, including the dangers of it leaking gas and causing
catastrophic explosions, putting individuals at risk for grave injury or death..
69. The Honeywell Defendants failed to appropriately warn users and consumers of the
Tapping Tee of the inherent dangers and hazards of inadequate/improper installation of the Tapping
Tee or the potential for a gas leakage and catastrophic explosion if not properly installed and used,
rendering the Tapping Tee defective and unreasonably dangerous.
70. The Honeywell Defendants further failed to design the Tapping Tee with appropriate
instructions and a mechanism for it to be appropriately installed and secured to the main, including
specific equipment to be utilized during installation, rendering the Tapping Tee defective.
71. No warnings were displayed or provided by the Honeywell Defendants to
appropriately and fully convey to users/buyers of its product the inherent dangers of failing to
properly install and use the Tapping Tee.
72. Had appropriate and adequate warnings and instructions been provided by the
Honeywell Defendants regarding installation of the Tapping Tee, the catastrophic and fatal injuries
of Richard Bouder would have been prevented.

16

Case ID: 181100083

 73. Had the Tapping Tee been appropriately and safety designed by the Honeywell
Defendants, Richard Bouder’s catastrophic and fatal injuries would have been prevented.
74. Prior to the incident, the Honeywell Defendants knew the Tapping Tee was defective,
unsafe and unreasonably dangerous, as set forth herein, yet failed to notify users or consumers in
conscious and reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of consumers and individuals that
would come into contact with its product..
75. The inherent dangers of the Tapping Tee that was designed, manufactured, and sold
by the Honeywell Defendants was unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary
consumer.
76. The significant probability and seriousness of harm from the defective condition of
the Tapping Tee, such as severe injury or death, significantly outweighed any burden or costs to the
Honeywell Defendants of taking precautions to prevent such harm.
77. The Tapping Tee and its component parts were designed, manufactured, sold and
distributed by the Honeywell Defendants with knowledge of the potentially dangerous or even deadly
consequences of a gas leak from a Tapping Tee and explosion, like that suffered by Richard Bouder.
In conscious and reckless disregard for that knowledge, the Honeywell Defendants failed to take or
adopt precautions proportionate to this severe risk of injury or death to persons utilizing or in contact
with its product, including specifically individuals working in the natural gas service industry, like
Richard Bouder. .
78. In designing, manufacturing, selling and distributing the Tapping Tee product for
many years, despite knowledge of the defective nature of the Tapping Tee and its unreasonably
dangerous condition that put product users or those in contact with the product at risk for
catastrophic injury or death, the Honeywell Defendants recklessly prioritized profits and sales over
the safety and the health and well-being of consumers and the public.

17

Case ID: 181100083

 Defendant CGI
79. Defendant CGI was also negligent in failing to properly install the Tapping Tee and
ensure that it was safe for use and not in a condition that would make it prone or susceptible to a gas
leak.
80. Prior to the installation of the Tapping Tee and the incident, CGI knew or had reasons
to know that the Tapping Tee was in a dangerous/deficient condition, not appropriately installed and
thus posed a risk of a gas leak and severe explosion. Despite these risks to the health and well-being
of persons using the Tapping Tee or in the proximity of the Tapping Tee, CGI failed to properly
install the Tapping Tee and to remedy its unreasonably dangerous condition.
81. At all relevant times, Richard Bouder was owed a duty of care by CGI.
82. At all relevant times, CGI and its agents/employees were negligent as a result of its
failure to exercise reasonable care to install the Tapping Tee and ensure that persons were not
exposed to death or grave injury from a gas leak associated with the improperly installed Tapping
Tee.
83. At all relevant times, CGI had a duty, obligation and responsibility to ensure that the
Tapping Tee was properly and safely installed and fit for ordinary use so that persons were protected
from the severe harm that could occur by a gas leak from the Tapping Tee.
The PPL Defendants
84. The PPL Defendants were also negligent in failing to ensure that a proper policy was
in place at PPL so that an electrical shut off occurred expeditiously during a known, significant gas
leak with the potential for explosion.
85. Prior to the gas leak and explosion on July 2, 2017, the PPL Defendants knew or had
reason to know that there was not a proper protocol or procedure in place at PPL for electrical shut
down during a natural gas leak and that if the electricity remained on during such a leak that it posed
a risk of an explosion and severe injury or death. In disregard of that risk, PPL failed to develop or
implement an appropriate procedure for shut down of electricity/power during a natural gas leak and

18

Case ID: 181100083

further failed to ensure that local gas companies were properly and sufficiently apprised of the
necessity of an electrical/power shut down in the presence of a severe gas leak.
86. At all relevant times, Richard Bouder was owed a duty of care by the PPL
Defendants.
87. At all relevant times, the PPL Defendants and their agents/ employees were negligent
as a result of their failure to exercise reasonable care to shut down the electricity/power at the
Residence and surrounding structures and to develop or implement an appropriate procedure for shut
down of electricity/power during a natural gas leak.
88. At all relevant times, the PPL Defendants had a duty, obligation and responsibility
to ensure expeditious electrical shut down in the presence of a significant gas leak and to develop
an appropriate procedure/protocol for same as well as to convey the necessity and importance of such
a protocol or procedure to local gas companies.
89. The aforementioned negligence of the PPL Defendants directly contributed to the
explosion and resulted in a delay in the shutting of the electricity at Residence thus increasing the
risk of a severe explosion and resulting severe injury and death that occurred.
90. The negligent, careless and reckless acts and omissions of all defendants, jointly and
severally, increased the risk of harm to Richard Bouder and/or were substantial contributing factors
in causing Richard Bouder to suffer catastrophic injuries and damages, including, without limitation:
a. death;
b. multiple traumatic and blunt force injuries, including fractures, abrasions,
lacerations;
c. mental anguish, anxiety, panic, fright and fear of impending death;
d. emotional distress until the time of his death;
e. conscious physical pain and suffering until the time of death;
f. loss of enjoyment of life and life's pleasures until the time of death;
g. loss of future earnings and earning capacity;
h. medical and funeral/burial expenses;
I. all injuries and damages described in the medical records, autopsy and
records of first responders to the scene, and
j. hastened and avoidable death.
91. The economic and non-economic injuries damages and losses suffered as a result of
the catastrophic and fatal injuries to Richard Bouder were caused solely and exclusively by the
negligence and recklessness of defendants and/or their agents, servants and employees, as described

19

Case ID: 181100083

herein, and were not caused or contributed to by any act or failure to act on the part of
Richard Bouder.
92. The grievous and fatal injuries of Richard Bouder were caused by the negligence and
recklessness of all defendants, and/or their agents, servants and employees, including the defective
design, manufacture and warnings/instructions of the Tapping Tee by the Honeywell Defendants
and the negligent conduct of CGI in installing the Tapping Tee as well as the negligence of the PPL
Defendants in failing to ensure an expeditious electrical/power shut down, as described herein, and
were due in no matter whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of Richard Bouder.
93. The amount in controversy exceeds the local rules for amounts in controversy
requiring arbitration.

COUNT ONE - STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Plaintiff v. Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a and/or d/b/a Honeywell, Inc.
(referred to herein as the “Honeywell Defendants”)
94. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are fully incorporated as though fully set
forth herein.
95. The Honeywell Defendants, either individually or by and through their respective
employees, agents, servants, subsidiaries, groups, divisions, acquired/affiliated companies,
corporations, and/or businesses, at all times relevant to this action were engaged in the design,
testing, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of tapping tees and instructions/warnings for tapping
tees, in particular, the subject Tapping Tee.
96. The Tapping Tee was expected to and did reach users and consumers, without
substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.
97. The Tapping Tee was in a defection condition creating a risk of harm to individuals,
including Richard Bouder.
98. There were no material changes or alterations to the Tapping Tee prior to
July 2, 2017.
99. The defective condition of the Tapping Tee includes those deficiencies set forth
herein, including but not limited to designing and manufacturing the Tapping Tee without bolts of

20

Case ID: 181100083

appropriate strength and of the appropriate material for its intended use and product life; with an
installation mechanism for attachment to the main gas line that made it overly prone and susceptible
to gas leakage, without adequate instructions/directions for torquing the nylon bolts and securing to
the main, and insufficient instructions and warnings to users and consumers regarding installation,
inspecting and usage of the Tapping Tee.
100. The manufacturing, design and warning/instructional defects of the Tapping Tee
described herein directly caused Richard Bouder’s injuries and death.
101. The aforesaid incident and Richard Bouder’s injuries and losses were caused by the
Honeywell Defendants designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, inspecting, marketing,
distributing, selling and/or supplying the Tapping Tee in a defective condition for which the
Honeywell Defendants are strictly liable to the plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent.
102. The Honeywell Defendants are strictly liable because the Tapping Tee and its
component parts and warnings/instructions were in a deflective condition and unreasonably
dangerous.
103. The Honeywell Defendants are strictly liability in tort because the danger to users of
the Tapping Tee was unknowable and unacceptable to the average consumer.
104. The Honeywell Defendants are strictly liability because a reasonable person would
conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm to persons using the Tapping Tee and risk of
serious injury or death like that suffered by Richard Bouder, significantly outweighed the burden or
costs of taking precautions to prevent such harm.
105. The aforesaid incident and injuries and losses to Richard Bouder and his Estate were
caused by the Honeywell Defendants designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, testing,
marking, distributing, selling and/or supplying the Tapping Tee in a defective and unreasonably
dangerous condition and without proper warnings, instructions, labels or guidelines for its safe use
for which the Honeywell Defendants are strictly liable to the plaintiff.

21

Case ID: 181100083

 106. Richard Bouder suffered the catastrophic and fatal injuries and damages described
herein as a direct and proximate result of the defective Tapping Tee.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Honeywell Defendants, jointly and
severally with other Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

COUNT TWO - NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff v. Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a and/or d/b/a Honeywell, Inc.
(referred to herein as the “Honeywell Defendants”)
107. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are fully incorporated as if fully set forth
herein.
108. The Honeywell Defendants owed a duty to design, manufacture, fabricate, assemble,
inspect, market, distribute, label, sell and/or supply its products, specifically the Tapping Tee in such
a way so as to avoid harm to persons, including Richard Bouder.
109. The Honeywell Defendants owed a duty to warn of the hazards and dangers
associated with the use of the Tapping Tee, so as to avoid harm to persons, such as Richard Bouder.
110. The Honeywell Defendants owed a duty to provide proper instructions regarding the
proper use of and installation of the Tapping Tee and to warn of the hazards and dangers associated
with the improper use/installation of the Tapping Tee, so as to avoid harm to persons, such as
Richard Bouder.
111. The Honeywell Defendants breached their duties.
112. The negligence and recklessness of the Honeywell Defendants acting by and through
their authorized divisions, subsidiaries, acquired/affiliated entities, agents, servants and employees
included one or more of the following:
a. designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, inspecting, marketing,
distributing, selling and/or supplying the Tapping Tee in an unsafe condition
for foreseeable and intended uses, including connection of a gas main to a
service line;

22

Case ID: 181100083

b. designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, inspecting, marketing,
distributing, selling and/or supplying the Tapping Tee in such a way that
persons using the Tapping Tee would not be apprised of its danger;
c. defectively designing the Tapping Tee without appropriate bolts/fasteners to
prevent against normal wear and tear and gas leaks;
d. defectively designing the Tapping Tee without proper instructions to advise
users of the inherent and severe dangers of failing to appropriately inspect,
torque or replace bolts of the Tapping Tee;
e. failure to adequately and properly test the subject Tapping Tee;
f. defectively designing the Tapping Tee in a manner which allowed the bolts
to become degraded, weakened and/or fractured/severed;
g. failure to adequately warn of an existing dangerous and hazardous condition,
including the risk of a gas leak with improper installation;
h. failure to instruct users/consumers/owners of the Tapping Tee regarding
development of an appropriate training and safety program for users of the
Tapping Tee;
i. failure to provide post sale warnings or instructions for the Tapping Tee;
j. failure to provide or properly label the Tapping Tee with appropriate
instructions for installation;
k. failure to instruct users/owners regarding the specific tools to be utilized
when installing the Tapping Tee;
l. failure to instruct users regarding the appropriate testing, inspection,
maintenance and replacement of bolts securing the Tapping Tee to the gas
main;
m. failure to supply Tapping Tees that were free of defects and fit and safe in all
respects for their intended and foreseeable uses;
n. failure to provide instructions and/or warnings with or on the Tapping Tee
that would sufficiently and appropriately inform users of its safety risks and
the appropriate assembly;
o. failure to provide instructions and/or warnings to apprise the user/consumer
of proper installation of the Tapping Tee;
p. failure to provide instructions and/or warnings with the Tapping Tee that
were sufficient to adequately warn the user of the risks/dangers involved in
using the product;
q. failure to provide proper instructions and/or warnings with the Tapping Tee
regarding the exact tools to be used during installation;
r. failure to provide proper instructions and/or warnings with the Tapping Tee
to inform installers what they should sense or detect during the installation
process to ensure safe and proper installation;
s. failure to provide instructions and/or warnings for the Tapping Tee regarding
the proper torquing of bolts or torque limits for the bolts;
t. failure to provide instructions and/or warnings on the Tapping Tee that were
of sufficient size or text or placed appropriately to appropriately inform the
user of the proper means of using or installing the product;
u. failure to employ, provide, or supply proper and appropriate warnings with
the Tapping Tee to apprise users of the inherent dangers in failing to properly
secure the Tapping Tee to a gas main;
v. failure to employ, provide, or supply proper and appropriate instructions with
the Tapping Tee for the safe installation of the Tapping Tee and prevention
of a natural gas leak;
w. failure to employ, provide, or supply proper and appropriate instructions with
the Tapping Tee for the safe installation of the Tapping Tee using the depth
tube

23

Case ID: 181100083

 x. failure to provide or supply proper and appropriate instructions regarding the
necessary tools for proper installation and safe usage of the Tapping Tee,
including to prevent gas leak;
y. failure to provide or supply proper and appropriate instructions to users to
ensure a secure connection of the Tapping Tee to the gas main and prevent
against a gas leak;
z. failure to provide or supply proper and appropriate instructions/warnings for
inspection, repair, torquing and/or replacement of bolts securing the Tapping
Tee to a gas main;
aa. disregarding the safety and well-being of users and consumers of the Tapping
Tee and the general public, including Richard Bouder,, by designing and
manufacturing the Tapping Tee in a defective manner;
bb. disregarding the safety of users and consumers of the Tapping Tee and the
general public, including Richard Bouder, by failing to eliminate, rectify,
and/or warn of known dangers or defects associated with its use, involving
a substantial likelihood of injury;
cc. failing to comply with statutes, codes, regulations, and/or industry standards
regarding the proper and safe design of the subject Tapping Tee;
dd. failing to comply with statutes, codes, regulations, and/or industry standards
regarding the proper and safe warnings and/or instructions of the subject
Tapping Tee;
ee. failure to meet governmental and industry safety standards, including but not
limited to American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Society of Mechanical
Engineer (ASME) standards for Tapping Tees;
ff. failure to use reasonable care to sell, manufacture, design, distribute, or
supply a Tapping Tee that complied with industry safety standards;
gg. negligently putting a Tapping Tee into the stream of commerce that failed to
contain proper and appropriate warnings, instructions and parts, to make it
safe for its foreseeable and intended uses;
hh. negligently designing a Tapping Tee that was overly prone and susceptible
to gas leaks and catastrophic explosions; and
ii. negligently designing a Tapping Tee that failed to contain adequate
instructions and parts for its safe installation and use.
113. The foregoing negligence, carelessness, and reckless of the Honeywell Defendants
increased the risk of harm and was a substantial contributing factor of the severe injuries and death
to Richard Bouder.
114. Richard Bouder suffered the catastrophic and fatal injuries and damages described
herein as a direct and proximate result of the negligent and reckless acts and/or omissions of the
Honeywell Defendants as set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Honeywell Defendants, jointly and
severally with other Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

24

Case ID: 181100083

 COUNT THREE - EXPRESS WARRANTY
Plaintiff v. Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a and/or d/b/a Honeywell, Inc.
(referred to herein as the “Honeywell Defendants”)
115. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated as though fully set forth
herein.
116. The Honeywell Defendants were the designers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers,
and/or sellers of the defective Tapping Tee, including the defective warnings/instructions contained
thereon or that accompanied the Tapping Tee.
117. The Honeywell Defendants, in designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling,
inspecting, marketing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the Tapping Tee, expressly warranted
that the Tapping Tee conformed to the description contained in their advertisements, written
warranty, manuals and other written materials, including:
a. that the Tapping Tee provided a leak-free connection and was a reliable, safe
mechanical tee.
b. that the Tapping Tee delivered safe, uninterrupted gas service.
c. that the Tapping Tee could be appropriately and safely installed in a matter
of minutes.
118. The writing containing the express warranty for the Tapping Tee is not accessible
after reasonable investigation and not publicly available. Plaintiff will therefore be required to
obtain the writing of the express warranty for the Tapping Tee at issue during discovery in this
litigation.
119. The advertisements, warranties and other written information provided by the
Honeywell Defendants created an affirmation and/or promise that the subject Tapping Tee would
conform, and created an express warranty to that effect; the affirmation of fact or promise and
description of the goods became a basis of the bargain, thereby creating an express warranty.
120. The Honeywell Defendants breached those express warranties.
121. The Honeywell Defendants are liable to plaintiff for injuries and damages described
herein for breach of express warranty.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Honeywell Defendants, jointly and
severally with other Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

25
Case ID: 181100083
COUNT FOUR-IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Plaintiff v. Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a and/or d/b/a Honeywell, Inc.
(referred to herein as the “Honeywell Defendants”)
122. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are fully incorporated as though fully set
forth herein
123. The Honeywell Defendants were the designers, manufacturers, assemblers,
distributors, suppliers and/or sellers of the defective Tapping Tee, including the defective
warnings/instructions provided therewith or thereon and were regular manufacturers, suppliers,
and/or sellers of the such Tapping Tees.
124. At the time of the sale the Tapping Tee, the Honeywell Defendants had reason to
know the specific use and particular purpose for which the Tapping Tee was being purchased,
namely the secure connection of a service line to a gas main. The decedent and/or purchaser relied
upon the skill or judgment of the Honeywell Defendants to select and/or furnish a Tapping Tee
suitable for that use, thereby creating an implied warranty that the Tapping Tee was fit for that
particular purpose.
125. In manufacturing, designing, assembling and/or supplying the Tapping Tee,
the Honeywell Defendants impliedly warranted that the Tapping Tee and its accompanying
warnings/instructions were safe for the consumer and general public.
126. The subject Tapping Tee, as stated above, was unsafe for use for the particular
purpose for which it was intended.
127. The Honeywell Defendants are liable to plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent for injuries
and damages described herein for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Honeywell Defendants, jointly and
severally with other Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

26

Case ID: 181100083

 COUNT FIVE - IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS OF MERCHANTABILITY
Plaintiff v. Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a and/or d/b/a Honeywell, Inc.
(referred to herein as the “Honeywell Defendants”)
128. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are fully incorporated as though fully
set forth herein.
129. The Honeywell Defendants were the designers, manufacturers, assemblers,
distributors, suppliers and/or sellers of the defective Tapping Tee including the defective warnings
and/or instructions and were regular manufacturers, suppliers, and/or sellers of the such Tapping
Tees.
130. The Honeywell Defendants were merchants with respect of the sale of the Tapping
Tee, and as such, dealt in goods of the kind involved in the transaction.
131. The Honeywell Defendants held themselves out as having knowledge and skill
particularly to goods involved in the transaction, to wit, tapping tees, and employed others, who by
their occupation, held themselves out as having such knowledge or skill.
132. An implied warranty of merchantability was established in the sale of the Tapping
Tee.
133. The implied warranty of merchantability was breached in that (a) the Tapping Tee and
its accompanying warnings and/or instructions were not of a proper quality generally accepted in the
trade under the description or designation of the goods; (b) the Tapping Tee did not meet the
standard of “fair average quality” within the description of the goods; (c) the Tapping Tee was not
fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used; (d) the Tapping Tee was not of the kind,
quality and quantity required for the unit supplied to UGI and/or Richard Bouder; (e) the Tapping
Tee was not contained, packaged, and labeled as indicated; and (f) the Tapping Tee did not conform
to the promises or affirmations of fact made to the consumer.
134. The Honeywell Defendants are liable to plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent for injuries
and damages described herein for breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

27

Case ID: 181100083

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Honeywell Defendants, jointly and
severally with all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

COUNT SIX - NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff v. Defendant Contractors Group, Inc. (“CGI”)
135. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are fully incorporated as though fully set
forth herein.
136. Defendant CGI owed a duty to conform to a standard of conduct established by law
for the protection of Richard Bouder.
137. Defendant CGI was responsible for, among other things, installation and inspection
of the Tapping Tee and specifically for ensuring that the Tapping Tee was properly installed and
secured.
138. Defendant CGI knew or had reason to know that the Tapping Tee could pose an
unreasonable risk of harm to persons, including Richard Bouder, if the Tapping Tee was not properly
installed and secured for its ordinary and expected purposes.
139. Defendant CGI knew or should have known that the general public, including those
working in the field of natural gas like Richard Bouder, would not and could not realize and/or
discover the risks associated with a Tapping Tee that was deficiently installed and utilized by CGI
and thus unfit for use.
140. Despite knowledge of the catastrophic and potentially fatal hazards to persons from
an improperly installed Tapping Tee, including natural gas leaks and massive explosions, CGI
deficiently and improperly installed the Tapping Tee and failed to ensure that the Tapping Tee was
appropriately installed and secured to the gas main and safe and appropriate for such ordinary and
foreseeable uses. CGI further failed to remedy the defective or dangerous conditions existing with
the Tapping Tee after installing it for use.

28

Case ID: 181100083

 141. Richard Bouder’s severe, catastrophic and fatal injuries were caused by the negligence
of CGI, jointly and severally with all defendants, acting by and through authorized divisions, groups,
subsidiaries, principals, owners, agents, servants, workmen, employees and/or officers, including
some or all of the below:
a. negligently installing the Tapping Tee and permitting and allowing the
Tapping Tee to be unsafe for use and operation;
b. failing to install the Tapping Tee as a reasonably prudent person would and
in accordance with industry standards;
c. allowing and permitting the dangerous and/or defective condition of the
Tapping Tee to exist;
d. creating a dangerous and hazardous condition by failing to properly install the
Tapping Tee making it unfit for operation;
e. failure to take the necessary steps to install the Tapping Tee in a safe and
proper condition;
f. failure to utilize proper tools during installation of the Tapping Tee;
g. failure to notify or inform others of the defective condition and/or improper
installation of the Tapping Tee;
h. failure to remedy to the defective and dangerous condition of the Tapping Tee
at any time before July 2, 2017;
i. failure to take action to remedy, replace or re-install the Tapping Tee at any
time before July 2, 2017;
j. failure to inspect the Tapping Tee to ensure it was properly installed and in
safe condition for use and operation;
k. failure to warn and/or notify others, including UGI or Richard Bouder, of the
existence of the Tapping Tee’s dangerous and hazardous condition, including
lack of appropriate warnings/instructions and insufficient bolts utilized for
attachment;
l. failure to utilize other, safer products for connecting the main to the service
line, including electrofusion;
m. failure to ensure that the Tapping Tee had appropriately strong and resilient
bolts for connection to the main gas line;
n. failure to properly and uniformly torque the nylon bolts of the Tapping Tee;
o. negligently under or over-torquing the nylon bolts of the Tapping Tee and
increasing the risk of a gas leak;
p. failure to ensure that the Tapping tee had appropriately torqued bolts during
installation and thereafter;
q. failure to discover or take proper steps/measures to discover the existence of
a dangerous and/or hazardous condition relating to the connection of the
Tapping tee to the main;
r. failure to ensure the locking mechanism of the Tapping Tee was engaged and
secured to the main;
s. failure to ensure that the locking mechanism and cutter tool of the Tapping
Tee was separated during the installation process;
t. failure to take measures or steps to prevent the defective condition of the
Tapping Tee, specifically leakage of gas;
u. failure to have an appropriate program, policy or system in place to ensure
that its staff/personnel, properly installed Tapping Tees and were aware of the
risks of a natural gas leak from same;

29

Case ID: 181100083

 v. failure to have an appropriate program, policy or system in place to ensure
that the nylon bolts of the Tapping Tee were appropriately torqued or
installed, with appropriate tools;
w. failure to follow directions/instructions for installation and application of the
Tapping Tee as contained within the Tapping Tee’s manual/instructions;
x. failure to implement, provide, or enforce an appropriate training program for
installers of the Tapping Tee;
y. failure to provide, maintain or replace labels/warnings/instructions on the
Tapping Tee;
z. failure to recognize defects within the Tapping Tee that exposed persons to
the risk of severe and permanent injury or death from a gas leak when in the
vicinity;
aa. failure to comply with industry standards applicable to the Tapping Tee
regarding installation, inspection, testing, maintenance and repair;
bb. failure to ensure there were policies, procedures or programs in place for the
appropriate installation of Tapping Tees at CGI;
cc. failure to establish and appropriate program or system to ensure Tapping Tees
were appropriately installed, tested and fit for use;
dd. failure to appropriately supervise its staff and/or employees who were
responsible for installation of Tapping Tees;
ee. failure to ensure that appropriate safety policies and procedures were
implemented and/or enforced regarding the installation, testing, inspection,
maintenance, repair of Tapping Tees; and
ff. failure to provide, convey or make available appropriate equipment and/or
information, including all necessary warning and instructions to persons
installing the Tapping Tee.
142. The foregoing negligent acts and omissions of CGI increased the risk of harm to
Richard Bouder and were a substantial contributing factor of the severe and fatal injuries suffered
by Richard Bouder
143. Richard Bouder suffered the catastrophic and fatal injuries and damages described
herein as a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of CGI, as set forth
above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant CGI and other Defendants
hereto, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

30

Case ID: 181100083

 COUNT SEVEN - NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiff v. Defendants PPL Corporation and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
(the “PPL Defendants”)
144. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are fully incorporated as though fully set
forth herein.
145. The PPL Defendants owed a duty to conform to a standard of conduct established by
law for the protection of Richard Bouder.
146. The PPL Defendants were responsible for, among other things, the expeditious shut
off of electricity/power during a natural gas leak as well as for specifically ensuring that protocols
and procedures for such a shut-down of electricity was properly conveyed and performed.
147. The PPL Defendants knew or had reason to know that the failure to expeditiously shut
off electricity/power during a natural gas leak could pose an unreasonable risk of harm to persons,
including Richard Bouder.
148. The PPL Defendants knew or should have known that the general public, including
those working in the field of natural gas like Richard Bouder, would not and could not realize and/or
discover the risks associated with the electricity/power remaining on during a natural gas leak.
149. Despite knowledge of the catastrophic and potentially fatal hazards to persons from
electricity/power remaining on during a gas leak, including a massive explosion, the PPL Defendants
failed to ensure that the electricity/power at the incident site/Residence was shut down. The PPL
Defendants also failed to communicate/convey the importance of such an electrical shut down and
failed to ensure that local gas companies were aware of and had policies in place with PPL for the
expeditious shut down of electricity/power during a natural gas leak.
150. Richard Bouder’s severe, catastrophic and fatal injuries were caused by the negligence
of the PPL Defendants, jointly and severally with all defendants, acting by and through authorized
divisions, groups, subsidiaries, principals, owners, agents, servants, workmen, employees and/or
officers, including some or all of the below:
a. failure to shut off the power/electricity at the incident site in a prompt and
timely manner;
b. failure to respond in a timely manner to the natural gas leak at the incident
site and take steps to ensure electrical shut down and/or eliminate an
explosive source;

31
Case ID: 181100083
 c. failure to communicate the necessity to expeditiously shut off
electricity/power during a natural gas leakage to prevent the risk of a serious
explosion and injury or death to individuals nearby;
d. negligently allowing the electricity/power to remain on at the
Residence/incident site and exposing Richard Bouder and others to the risk
of serious injury or death from an explosion;
e. failure to have an appropriate program, policy or system in place to ensure
that the electrical and power issues associated with a natural gas leakage were
appropriately and timely managed;
f. failure to ensure there were policies, procedures or programs in place for the
appropriate and timely electrical/power shut down during a natural gas leak;
g. failure to ensure there were policies, procedures or programs in place for
responding to a serious natural gas leak, including to prevent against ignition
sources and explosions;
h. failure to timely have staff/personnel on site at the Residence/incident site to
provide input and expertise relating to electric issues;
i. failure to appropriately supervise its staff and/or employees who were
responsible for management of electricity and power issues during a natural
gas leak;
j. failure to ensure that appropriate safety policies and procedures were
implemented and/or enforced regarding the management of electricity and
power issues at sites to which the PPL Defendants provided electricity/power
during a natural gas leak
k. negligently allowing and permitting the dangerous condition of a natural gas
leak with continued live electricity and an ignition source at the incident
site/Residence;
l. failure to implement a policy whereby there was immediate electrical or
power shut down at residences/structures during a serious natural gas leak;
m. creating a dangerous and hazardous condition by allowing the electricity to
remain on at the incident site despite a known gas leak with explosive levels;
n. failure to take the necessary steps to implement a policy, procedure or
protocol whereby electricity/power was expeditiously shut off during a
natural gas leak;
o. failure to convey the importance, both internally within the PPL Defendants
and externally to local gas companies, including UGI, of proper and
expeditious management of electrical/power issues during a natural gas leak;
p. failure to exercise reasonable care in ensuring that local gas companies were
aware of the need to expeditiously notify the PPL Defendants and/or shut
down power/electricity during a natural gas leak;
q. failure to notify or inform others, including UGI, of the necessity of
expeditiously shutting off the electricity/power during a natural gas leak;
r. failure to recognize the lack of a policy, procedure or protocol at the PPL
Defendants for prompt notification of a serious natural gas leak with the
explosive levels and the necessity of expeditious shut down of electricity
power; and
s. failure to have appropriate policies, procedures and protocols in place to
prevent against serious injury and death at locations where the PPL
Defendants provided electricity or power
151. The foregoing negligent acts and omissions of the PPL Defendants increased the risk
of harm to Richard Bouder and were a substantial contributing factor of the severe and fatal injuries
suffered by Richard Bouder

32

Case ID: 181100083

 152. Richard Bouder suffered the catastrophic and fatal injuries and damages described
herein as a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of the PPL Defendants
as set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the PPL Defendants and other
defendants hereto, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

COUNT EIGHT - WRONGFUL DEATH

Plaintiff v. All Defendants
153. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated as though fully set forth
herein.
154. Plaintiff, Kim Bouder, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard
Bouder, deceased, brings this action under and by virtue of the Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§8301, and the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and decisional law of this Commonwealth
interpreting this Act.
155. As a result of the negligent and reckless acts and omissions of the defendants, as
described herein, plaintiff’s decedent, Richard Bouder, suffered catastrophic, permanent and fatal
injuries resulting in his hastened, premature and avoidable death, giving rise to the entitlement to
damages by his heirs, as beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act.
156. Under the Wrongful Death Act, Richard Bouder, deceased, left surviving him his
spouse Kim Bouder and his daughter Danielle Hornberger. These individuals, who have been
notified of the commencement of this action, are listed below, and are the beneficiaries entitled to
recover damages under the Wrongful Death Act:
a. Kim Bouder (spouse)
b. Danielle Hornberger (adult daughter)

33

Case ID: 181100083

 157. As a result of the negligent and reckless acts and omissions of all Defendants, jointly
and severally, Richard Bouder was caused grave injuries and death resulting in the entitlement to
damages by the aforementioned beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act.
158. Plaintiff, Kim Bouder, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of
Richard Bouder deceased, on behalf of the Wrongful Death beneficiaries so entitled, claims damages
for the monetary support the decedent would have provided to these beneficiaries, if any, during his
lifetime.
159. Plaintiff, Kim Bouder, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of
Richard Bouder, deceased, on behalf of the Wrongful Death beneficiaries so entitled, claims
damages for the loss of earnings, maintenance, support, comfort, care, society, guidance, tutelage
and/or other losses recognized under the Wrongful Death Act, which they would have received from
the decedent had his death not occurred.
160. Plaintiff, Kim Bouder, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of
Richard Bouder, deceased, on behalf of all of the Wrongful Death beneficiaries, claims claim the full
measure of damages recoverable under and by virtue of the Wrongful Death Act and the decisional
law of this Commonwealth interpreting the Act, including but not limited to damages for all hospital
and medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, costs of estate administration, as well as the loss
of the services, society, comfort, support, guidance and tutelage that he would have provided to his
family during his lifetime had he lived, and damages for any and all other losses suffered by each
of the beneficiaries by reason of Richard Bouder’s tragic and premature death, as may be allowed
under the Wrongful Death Act and the decisional law interpreting the Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally,
for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00), and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-
judgment interest, and costs.

34

Case ID: 181100083

 COUNT NINE - SURVIVAL ACT
Plaintiff v. All Defendants
161. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
162. Plaintiff, Kim Bouder, Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Bouder, deceased,
brings this Survival Action on behalf of the Estate of Richard Bouder, deceased, and claims the full
measure of damages under the Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8302, the applicable Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the decisional law interpreting the Survival Act.
163. As a result of the negligent and reckless acts and omissions of all Defendants,
Richard Bouder was caused grave injuries and death resulting in the entitlement to damages by the
Estate of Richard Bouder, deceased, under the aforementioned Survival Act.
164. On behalf of decedent’s Estate, Plaintiff claims the loss of earnings and economic
loss to decedent’s Estate, including, but not limited to, Richard Bouder’s total estimated future
earning capacity less his cost of personal maintenance.
165. On behalf of decedent’s Estate, Plaintiff claims damages for Richard Bouder’s
tremendous mental and physical discomfort, anxiety, anguish, fright, conscious physical pain and
suffering, disfigurement, loss of the ability to enjoy life and life’s pleasures until death, and any and
all other damages and losses recoverable under the Survival Act and the decisional law interpreting
the Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for
compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00),
and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, and costs.

ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP

By: /s/ Matthew A. Casey

MATTHEW A. CASEY, ESQUIRE
JOHN M. PINTO, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: November 5, 2018

35
Case ID: 181100083
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, John M. Pinto, Esquire, certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public
Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and
Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-
confidential information and documents.

ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP

By: /s/ John M. Pinto

JOHN M. PINTO, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: November 5, 2018

36
Case ID: 181100083
Case ID: 181100083
 Filed and Attested by the
Office of Judicial Records
05 NOV 2018 09:28 am
File Number: 36-2018-00399
A. SILIGRINI

SHORT CERTIFICATE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COUNTY OF LANCASTER

I, Anne L. Cooper, Register of Wills in the County of Lancaster, in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of February, 2018 Letters of
Administration on the Estate of RICHARD A. BOUDER, deceased, were granted to KIM D.
BOUDER having first been qualified wen and truly to administer the same. And I further certify
that no revocation of said Letters appears of record in my office.

Date of Death: 7/2/2017

Social Security Number:
.,

Given under my hand and seal ofofflce this i (jtlid~Y·?f],.~bruary, 2018

. f, ~

.. "
.

- t.2Jt'J\Z ']' .. (£.:, (~.i1/",-\

Lancaster County Register Of\\·ill<.i/
!
NOT V& T.Tn WTTHOTTT TMPRF.SSF.O SF.AT,

Case ID: 181100083